Shall the Board of Education of Palatine Community Consolidated School District Number 15, Cook County, Illinois be authorized to issue $27,000,000 bonds for a working cash fund as provided for by Article 20 of the School Code?

A
large budget deficit is forecasted over the next
several years. But the District 15 Board has no plan to fix this problem.
Instead they want to
raise taxes now and balance the budget later.

District 15 published a
Five-Year Projection dated March 15, 2010, that
shows $55 million of deficits. Over six months later
there is no visible action nor plan by the Board to
address this crisis.

Instead District
15 will be raising taxes if you vote Yes on the
November 2 bond referendum. They're trying to make
you think it isn't a big increase, but this tax
increase is only the tip of the iceberg.

March 10, 2010: Board voted 4-3 to initiate the legal steps required to issue "non-referendum" bonds. Non-referendum bonds are bonds that don't require voter approval.
See video of board
meeting related to bonds. The original $27 million bond proposal
contemplated $10 million for a Working Cash Fund (see article about
District 15 Cash Management)
and $17 million for Capital Projects.

April 26: Initial
District 15 Electoral Board meeting held to start review of petition
challenge. The review board consists of District 15 board President
Gerald Chapman, Secretary June Becker and member
Timothy Millar. For more see Daily Herald
Dist. 15 petitions now in hands of Cook County
clerk.

May 3-5: Records were
reviewed at the Cook County Clerk offices in Chicago. Of the 1775
signature objections, the Clerk agreed with 835 objections and
rejected 940 objections. This left a surplus of 324 signatures over
the 6339 required to put the bond question on the ballot in
November. For more see Daily Herald
Review of
7,500 signatures on Distrct 15 petition is complete.

May 8-18: The petition
team collected over 100 affidavits from voters whose signatures were
challenged.

June 3: A District 15
Electoral Board hearing was held June 3rd and the objectors' motion
to withdraw their challenge was granted.

August 18: The District
15 board met and decided not to rescind the March
10th bond resolution. Various reasons were mentioned
but most board members didn't clearly state their
reasons why they decided to proceed with the
November 2 bond referendum. Also, a budget was
approved for the 2010-11 school year.

September 15: At the
September 15 board meeting, Interim Superintendent
Scott Thompson presented his recommended course of
action if voters approve the referendum. See
September 15 Board Briefs for more information.
Unfortunately Mr. Thompson did not present a
recommendation for the "if voters don't approve"
scenario so it remains unclear what the District
intends to do in this case. Also, the Board did not
take action on the "if voters approve"
recommendation and made no commitment on what they
would do with the $27 million bonding authority that
would be over and above their non-referendum bonding
authority. Finally, the Board Briefs omitted
concerns expressed by board members about the
projects and spun some key facts about the urgency
of the projects (e.g., omitting the statement "our
buildings are not unsafe at this time" and vaguely
saying capital improvement needs "must be addressed
in the near future" - the
dialogue with Craig Phillips during the meeting
indicated that the appropriate timeframe was a few
years). Some of the board member concerns included
issuing 20-year bonds to fund projects with 7-10 year useful lives and not reducing the bond amount to reflect
other capital project funding sources.

October 13: At the
October 13 board meeting, Assistant Superintendent
for Business and Auxiliary Services Michael Adamczyk presented
a new five-year forecast that showed $25 million in
deficits over five years. There were several
questions about the new forecast model including:
(a) whether the model reflected current board
policies such as for classroom sizes, (b) whether a
conservative assumption about salary increases
should be made rather than the 0% base increase
assumed after the current contract ends, and (c)
what are the main differences between the March
forecast that showed $55 million in deficits and the
new forecast that shows $25 million in deficits.